Nadja

I saw Nadja at the Vancouver Film Festival, and was struck by its freshness. The use of the toy camera with the pixelated (fuzzy) image during the more violent scenes added a nightmarish quality, making it more frightening. Good performances, especially from Peter Fonda who played a wacked-out Dr. Van Helsing character.

One of the more original vampire movies of late. Not just for the goths.

In New York City Nadja, her brother and their slave come to terms with the murder of their father by Van Helsing. Meanwhile the girlfriend of Helsing's nephew, Jim, is taken as a drone by Nadja. Jim and Van Helsing set out to stop the reign of the Dracula family and stop their blood lust.

I didn't even know this was about the Dracula legend when I sat to watch it, just the title drew me and the cast sounded quite promising. The black and white, shaky shots, post modern slant and grainy camera work were both a draw and a turn off for me. On one hand it was very arty, deliberately sticking a finger up to the mainstream. I dislike this feeling - one that the multiplex crowd are unworthy of any film and that the director wouldn't care to have their film be successful and hence uses such things with abandon. However it also made the film much more imaginative and interesting if it had all been full Technicolor with steadicam and nicely framed shots, it was pretty hip and I enjoyed it even if I felt like it was aimed at the art crowd rather than just being a film for anyone or everyone.

The story is quite good, albeit just a twist on the old story of Dracula. The script is where the main difference lies. It is quite talky a film but it is better for it. The dialogue is a little pretentious at times but it is interesting and involving. In terms of characters I'm afraid it falls down quite badly - the grainy images and dialogue that is far from `down to earth' stop the characters from ever being real people or even characters that I felt deeply involved in - but happily it wasn't to the point that I was completely disinterested in them. That's not to say it was great - but it was different enough to keep me interested, even if I wasn't gripped by it at any point. Likewise with the direction, I felt there was imagination but that it went too far to the point of just being experimental and arty for the sake of it. If you are making a film with as good a cast as this had then why on earth would you use a child's camera unless you were trying to be arty? This mindset did feel through the whole film and it was, as I've already said, a pretty big turn off for me.

The cast is great on paper but they struggle with the pretentious dialogue and the fact that the film loses them in a grainy black & white world. I will always watch Donovan but that doesn't mean he's any good. Here he is alright but has precious little to actually do! Fonda is better and plays his character with a sense of humour that the wider film could well have benefited from - I wonder if the director got annoyed by Fonda not playing it straight when he clearly had arty aspirations. Lowensohn is not only beautiful but acts well in the title role but the astonishingly named Galaxy Craze was pretty much cardboard as Lucy.

Overall this is an interesting movie but it struggles under the weight of it's own pretensions. I found it to be different enough visually and script-wise to be interesting and even I found the apparent concerted effort to alienate the mainstream to be slightly off putting. An interesting effort but one that will irritate far more viewers than it will please.

I cannot believe how lame this movie is. The acting is terrible, and seeing as all these performers have a decent repertoire, one can only blame the writing. Cliches abound: a pet tarantula named Bela (oooh--you're soooooo Goth), ridiculous Romanian accents with forced ESL dialogue (e.g., "Why you show me this?", pathetic Philosphy 101 ruminations ("We've lost touch with God...I don't mean the man with the beard, the father, the punisher, but the Source"---oooh, deep), etc. My personal favorite laugh comes at the title character's large black hooded cape. Her description of her birthplace (I won't ruin the one true comic gem of this film) is similarly laughable..I had to rewind twice...

Was this project the brainchild of high school Goths, creatively malnourished and trapped in their under-stylized 80s haze? It truly looks like the directorial efforts of a novice who desperately wanted to update "The Hunger" for a new generation of bat-cavers. Too bad, cuz it doesn't hold a candle.

The video box describes two vampires hiding in the NY afterhours scene, but all we see of that potentially exciting "scene" is a quick montage of some fake club and a tiny bar with one other customer. Perhaps the most annoying attempt at hipness is the use of a highly-pixelated camera to show "vampire vision." DORKY!!!! The lack of consistent perspective makes this tool useless--whose vision is this? Nadja's? Her vampire brother's? God the Punisher's? LAAAAAAME...

I love the blood that spews forth from one actor--thicker than hershey's syrup and about as convincing. Things pick up a bit in the ending, but good luck making it that far. I can't stress enough how bad the writing is. It almost has to be seen to be believed, but why waste your 90 minutes?

A striking departure from the Wes Craven/Tarantino vampire treatment of vampirism of late, Almereyda's artful black and white piece gives us intimate psychological portraits of the count's wayward son and daughter, and their sexual exploits - specifically as they involve a married couple whose terminal ennui is exploded by the entrance of Nadja - dracula's twin daughter, who falls in love with Galaxy Craze's (am I the only one who finds this name a little disturbing, and slightly reminiscent of porn-names)character and abducts her to Transylvania.

Peter Fonda does a brilliantly and comically paranoid Van Helsing and Dracula himself. David Lynch, whose wife Mary Sweeney produced the film, has a cameo and much of the film's heady cutting and profusion of cigarette-smoke seems to echo Lynch's work - definitely qualifies for an amazon.com-style "Customers who bought "Blue Velvet" also bought "Nadja".

Criticisms would include a slight over-reliance on fairly blatant visual puns (Martin Donovan's character is asked "can you picture that" and responds "yes, I can picture that" to visual accompaniment, and this device is repeated), and perhaps gratuitous use of smoke machine technology, but on the whole a fresh, artful evocation of one of the more encrusted thematic territories in film.

I've just read all of the reviews on this film on this site and nobody even mentions what this film is really about. Like any "good" horror story it works on different levels. Like the Zombie films of George Romero there's an underlying message to this film that has nothing to do with it's horror exterior. But you have to think about what Michael Almereyda is trying to say with this story. This isn't just true of this film, but of all good horror. Dr. Jeckyle and Mr.Hyde-Addiction to substances, Frankenstein-Man playing at being God, Dracula-Hate poisoning the mind and soul. The main theme of this film is wanting to change your life but not being able to escape your old habits and break loose. It's even mentioned outright several times during the film by different characters. There's a lot of philosophical discussions by different characters on this through the film.

This film has black humor, meaning of life philosophy, camera work that serves a purpose to enhance the story and heart felt dramatic performances by all of the actors and actresses.

One of the things that I really like about this film, (and one of the things that many people didn't understand or like) was the use of the toy camera pixel-vision effect. I found it to be a perfect way of economically expressing the intoxicating effect of being under the influence of a vampire. If you watch the film and think about the scenes where it's employed it will be obvious. It isn't just a random attempt to be arty as many of the reviewers seem to think. It's a visual depiction of the impaired state of mind that you might experience if a vampire was psychically manipulating a mortal. And it enhances the film it doesn't detract from it. Whether you like it or not, film-making is an art. Just like painting, drawing, writing or any other form of expression. Some filmmakers just don't have any sense of art, they only wish to mindlessly entertain. That's why people say things like TV rots your mind. Well, I guess that if you watch anything in a mindless manor that could be true. But film that has something to say, something to think about is a worthwhile use of time and intellect.

I have a fairly large collection of "horror" films and "Art House" and I can tell you that Nadja is one of my all time favorites. Every time I watch it I see something new, get a different little joke or notice different connections that I didn't get before. I also enjoy many of the "Mindless entertainment" variety of Vampire films,and so a quote from the writer David Goyer who wrote the screenplays for Blade, "Sometimes you just want to see somebody kick some ass!".

Most people don't realize how huge the genre of Vampire Cinema really is. Dracula is the definitely the most filmed character in film history, and the greater tree of Vampire films in world cinema is so big that it almost impossible to accurately list. Of the Art House and Vintage, comedy and Vampire Hunter categories I would recommend checking out some of my favorites. Many Vampire films are a hybrid of two or more of these categories,but they all have different points that I find attractive,humorous, exciting, entertaining and thought provoking. Again, I haven't seen but a small selection of the huge list of Vampire cinema, so it's likely that I'll be leaving out many excellent selections and maybe some of your favorites in this list. I'm giving this list because the film Nadja could very well be enjoyed if you like some of the films that I like and have been entertained by.

Art House and Vintage: Nosferatu 1922 (The original granddaddy Vampire film from the silent era. The Kino Version is worth paying for with an excellent soundtrack option featuring musicians from Art Zoid), Nosferatu the Vampyre (Werner Herzog), Shadow of the Vampire (a fun comedy-fictional story based around the making of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu-1922), Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer's atmospheric masterpiece, even though part's of the film were created by accident!),Dracula (1931), The Hammer Dracula series (feartuing the great Christopher Lee), Dracula-Pages from a Virgin's diary (a modern silent film of a Canadian Ballet company filmed by Guy Madden), Blood for Dracula (also known as Andy Worhol's Dracula), Immortality, Ganja and Hess, Habit, Near Dark, Salem's Lot (Based on the novel by Stephan King-the original mini-series, I haven't seen the newer remake) Bram Stoker's Dracula (The love it or hate it classic by F. Coppola).

Some of my favorites from the Vampire Hunter sub-genre: The Blade Series (Again one of those "Love it or hate it" series for some.), John Carpenter's Vampires (This one is hard to classify, lots of comedy too.), The Captain Kronos-Vampire Hunter films by Hammer studios, The Forsaken, and the British TV series "Ultraviolet" (an X-Files type mini-series). Also worth mention is the Japanese-Anime films Vampire Hunter D-Bloodlust (You'll forget that you're watching a cartoon, the story's that good!), and Blood-The last Vampire (A short but well done film).

Some of the comedy genre: Innocent Blood, Modern Vampires, The Breed, Dusk to Dawn (I've only seen the first one, a hybrid of Tarantino's crime style and Robert Rodriguez's horror style), Vampire's Kiss, and Interview with the Vampire (I find this Ann Rice film quite comedic), and Lost Boys (A local favorite being that I live in Santa Cruz).

Nadja is one of the jewels of my collection because it is truly a multi-faceted piece of film-making that defies categorization.